Re: 7.3 schedule - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: 7.3 schedule
Date
Msg-id 27235.1018620866@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 7.3 schedule  (Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz>)
Responses Re: 7.3 schedule  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Karel Zak <zakkr@zf.jcu.cz> writes:
>     * The patch allows store query-planns to shared memory and is
>       possible EXECUTE it at more backends (over same DB) and planns
>       are persistent across connetions. For this feature I create special 
>       memory context subsystem (like current aset.c, but it works with 
>       IPC shared memory).
>       This is maybe too complex solution and (maybe) sufficient is cache 
>       query in one backend only. I know unbelief about this shared
>       memory solution (Tom?). 

Yes, that is the part that was my sticking point last time around.
(1) Because shared memory cannot be extended on-the-fly, I think it is
a very bad idea to put data structures in there without some well
thought out way of predicting/limiting their size.  (2) How the heck do
you get rid of obsoleted cached plans, if the things stick around in
shared memory even after you start a new backend?  (3) A shared cache
requires locking; contention among multiple backends to access that
shared resource could negate whatever performance benefit you might hope
to realize from it.

A per-backend cache kept in local memory avoids all of these problems,
and I have seen no numbers to make me think that a shared plan cache
would achieve significantly more performance benefit than a local one.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Lockhart
Date:
Subject: Re: numeric/decimal docs bug?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: numeric/decimal docs bug?